1. The North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project Steven P. Morris North Carolina State University Libraries Maintaining Long-Term Access to Geospatial DataOctober 27, 2006

2. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2 NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA), with Library of Congress under the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) One of 8 initial NDIIPP partnerships Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration) Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventories Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation Serve as catalyst for discussion within industry

3. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3 Targeted data: Digital orthophotography 85+ NC counties with orthophotos 1-5 flights per county 30-200 gb per flight

4. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4 Targeted data: Vector data (w/tabular) Economic, infrastructure, and ethnographic data

5. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5 Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage Future uses of data are difficult to anticipate (as with Sanborn Maps).

6. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6 Risks to State/Local Geospatial Data Producer focus on current data Data overwrite as common practice Future support of data formats in question No open, supported format for vector data Shift to web services-based access Data becoming more ephemeral Inadequate or nonexistent metadata Impedes discovery and use Increasing use of spatial databases for data management The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

7. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7 Challenge: Vector Data Formats No widely-supported, open vector formats for geospatial data Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) not widely supported Geography Markup Language (GML) – diversity of application schemas and profiles threatens permanent access Spatial Databases The sum is more than the whole of the parts, and the sum is very difficult to preserve Can export individual data layers for curation Some thinking of using the spatial database as the primary archival platform

8. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8 Challenge: Cartographic Representation Counterpart to the map is not just the dataset but also models, symbolization, classification, annotation, etc.

9. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9 Challenge: Geospatial Web Services How to capture records from decision- making processes? Possible: Atlas collections from automated image capture Web 2.0 impact: Emerging tiling and caching schemes (archive target?)

10. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10 Different Ways to Approach Preservation Technical solutions: How do we archive acquired content over the long term? Build a data repository: not as an end in itself but as a catalyst for discussion within the data community Develop a repository ingest workflow: create technical points of engagement with the NDIIPP partners

11. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11 Different Ways to Approach Preservation Cultural/Organizational solutions: How do we make the data more preservable—and more prone to be archived—from point of production? Engage data producer community and spatial data infrastructure through outreach and engagement; influence practice Sell the problem to software vendors and standards development Find overlap with more compelling business problems: disaster preparedness, business continuity, road building, etc. Start a discussion about roles at the local, state, and federal level

12. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12 NCGDAP Technical Approach Receive data as is – variety of distribution methods Migration of some at-risk formats Metadata remediation, standardization, and synchronization Distilling complex objects into repository ingest items (not easy) Using DSpace for demonstration purposes (keeping repository platform at arms length) In the development: use METS record as dormant item “brain” within the repository Some unsustainable activities – for learning experience

13. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13 Building Data Bundles: The Zip Codes Example

14. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14 Where is the Dataset?

15. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15 Here’s One! Files Multi-file dataset Georeferencing Metadata file Symbolization file Additional documentation License Disclaimer More Metadata FGDC Acquisition metadata Transfer metadata Ingest metadata Archive rights Archive processes Collection metadata Series metadata

16. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16 Hub-and-Spoke Metadata Workflow

17. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17 Hub-and-Spoke Metadata Workflow

18. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18 Cultural: Changing Industry Thinking Is the geospatial industry “temporally-impaired?” Lack of access to older data Lack for tool/model support for temporal analysis Metadata: poor support for changing data Education: building class projects around available data (i.e., not temporal) Increased interest now in temporal applications? Increased demand for temporal data? Improved tool support: ArcGIS 9.2 animation tools; Geodatabase History, etc.

19. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19 Cultural: Content Exchange Networks Solving the present-day problems of data sharing is a pre-requisite to solving the problem of long-term access Leveraging more compelling business problems: disaster preparedness and business continuity needs can put the data in motion (siphon off to the archive) Engage existing spatial data infrastructure in archiving and preservation Content exchange network technical challenges: Rights management Large-scale transfers on network Content packaging (MPEG 21 DIDL, XFDU, METS, …)

20. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20 Cultural: Engaging Standards Efforts Nov. 2005 EDINA and NCSU present on preservation challenges at the OGC Technical Committee Meeting Key points of intersection with standards efforts: GML archival profile? Content packaging and content exchange Metadata support for temporal entities Archival use cases in GeoDRM Oct. 2006 meeting of Ad Hoc Historical Data Working Group at OGC TC – plans to develop a formal Data Preservation Working Group

21. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 21 Sept. 2006 Frequency of Capture Survey Survey objective: Document current practices for obtaining archival snapshots of county/municipal geospatial vector data layers Seek guidance about frequency of capture Survey topics: General questions about data archiving practice Specific questions about parcels, street centerlines, jurisdictional boundaries, and zoning Survey subjects: All 100 counties and 25 municipalities 58% response rate Survey conducted September 2006

22. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 22 NC County/Municipal Agency Frequency of Capture: Parcel Data Based on a percentage of the respondents that indicate they actually archive some data

23. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 23 Project Status Cultivating a commercial market for older data. Part of “permanent access” is marketing, advertising, and putting older data into the path of the user What About Commercial Data?

24. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 24 Mobile, LBS and, social networking applications drive demand for placed-based data Example sources: Oblique Imagery Street-view Imagery (e.g., A9.com) Transportation Dept. Videologs Long-term cultural heritage value in non-overhead imagery: more descriptive of place and function New Challenges: “Platial” vs. Spatial Imagery

25. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 25 Emerging online environments are increasingly used to make decisions, how are these decisions documented? How far will KML go? Temporal component in emerging tiling & caching standards? New Challenges: Ajax Applications, Google Earth and All That

26. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 26 Web mashup interactions with existing systems spur creation of intermediate content layers: e.g., tiling and caching of WMS services Identification of a standard tiling scheme may create a new preservation opportunity (temporal axis on caches?)

27. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 27 Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head, Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries ph: (919) 515-1361 Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap